Greater New Orleans

California, Louisiana now have open primaries in common: John Maginnis

The notion that Louisiana and California would agree on fundamental public policy would send shivers down the spines of the body politic in both states. If the two have anything in common it is that both are considered "out there," if in different directions, by the more ordinary rest of the Union.

Eliot Kamenitz, The Times-Picayune archiveThese voters at New Orleans City Hall were photographed Jan. 25.

As different as are politicians in the Golden State from those in the Bayou State, what they now share in common, and not with those in other states, is the system by which they gain office.

This month, California voters approved a referendum to dispense with party primaries in favor of non-partisan primaries in which all candidates appear on the same ballot and the top two finishers go to a runoff. That's called the open primary in Louisiana, used in state and local elections, and about to be returned to in congressional races, pending final action by the Legislature this week.

While re-adopting the open primary for all elections is causing little stir here, California's move has sent shock waves across the political landscape, rattling the furniture in the state and national headquarters of both major parties and the minor ones too.

In the Louisiana Legislature, both houses agree that the state's brief experiment with partisan primaries in congressional elections caused too much voter confusion and discontent. Only Republicans could vote in GOP primaries, but the Democrats opened theirs to independents, while the open primary was retained for state and local elections.

Yet the easiest selling point for the author, Rep. Hunter Greene, R-Baton Rouge, was the potential $6.5 million savings by going from three-step elections (first party primary, second party primary, general election) to a single open primary and runoff. In the bill's current form, the new law would take effect next year and not change this fall's elections.

Ever since California voters made their switch earlier this month, party activists and political columnists, from George Will to David Broder, have been wringing their hands over what it means for politics in that state and, God forbid, should it spread beyond.
The most common fear expressed is that if all voters, including independents, get to choose among all candidates, it would favor the ideological center at the expense of either party's base, resulting in runoffs between candidates with the least differences and convictions, mush in the middle.

Ye of little faith. To those who fear the non-partisan primary would result in bland choices, we in Louisiana can offer five words to reassure them, or not: Edwin Edwards versus David Duke.

In Louisiana's infamous 1991 race for governor, voters in the primary gravitated toward the extremes and squeezed out the moderate incumbent Buddy Roemer. That's the most dramatic example but it is no fluke. Time and again in this state's elections, from wide fields of candidates emerged those with the strongest views and bases of support on opposite ends of the spectrum. In competitive districts, nearly always the strongest Republican meets the strongest Democrat in the runoff.

The pundits also bemoan the fate of minor parties that would be eliminated from the general election ballot. Oh, please. The last candidate elected to major office by a minor party was George W. Bush, who would not have won Florida in 2000 but for liberals voting for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore. What is this coddling of minor parties? If they are not viable enough to compete in an open primary, they should not be entitled to clutter the general election ballot, and won't in future California and Louisiana elections.

What party loyalists, here and all over, most fear is well-known and/or self-financed entrepreneurial candidates, of either persuasion or independent, who don't toe the party line and kowtow to party leaders. There is a place for political parties in our system, but voters these days have all the opportunities and resources they need to judge candidates without party vetting.

On matters of substance, Louisiana and California will have to agree to disagree on most issues: abortion rights, medical marijuana, offshore drilling. Yet choosing similar election mechanics should do nothing but enhance what makes the politics of both states colorful and raucous and distinctive from the rest. Vive la difference, dude.

John Maginnis is an independent journalist covering Louisiana politics. He can be contacted at www.LaPolitics.com.